Well, it does say this for "position 1":
All amps sound the same when they are not clipping and are designed for a flat response

That bolded part implies what I was talking about -- you drove the 589 amps to clipping/distortion, so of course the Emo sounded better at that volume because it wasn't beyond its limits. Nobody would say that a 50W amp will sound the same as a 200W amp when you actually NEED more than 50 watts!

They should have sounded the same, however, at lower volumes when the 589 was within its "happy zone" of flat, undistorted output.

Mmmm - I'm not so sure, batpig. On both units, I found the threshold of distortion, and purposely ran each unit just below that level to compare the sounds. At such levels on both units, the amp sounded louder, cleaner, bigger, and filled the room more than the AVR. By all definitions that I would use, the amp sounded "better".

I was not comparing the AVR with distortion to the amp without, as you have insinuated.

I agree Krabapple it is food for thought that maybe we do have bias when it comes to dynamics and going for powerful amps believing we hear more than what is there.
However the complete food for thought is that it could be possible that in ABX testing for some reason listeners fail to identify actual dynamics that are there, and also even more subtle sounds.
As I said in the past to a certain extent it is probably a mix of both instances.

A primary reason, IMO, would be that the listener really has overestimated their skill and talents - IOW lack of training. BTW, I'm agreeing with you.

Quote:

But an interesting preference is when reading either from people like Ailmentall or other posters when they audition one particular manufacturer that has a unique solution.
Here is a different example that when listeners go and audition the NAD M3 to other similar spec amps.
It seems that it has a serious amount of fans, but maybe this is because it has a proprietary solution that is very slick for instant dynamic power and also soft clipping.
Of course this then would lead to the fact there is potential for dynamics being involved and identified as preference, or in other words preference listening and testing.

That's NAD's schtick and except for the time they were known as Not Always Defective, they seem to pull it off well.

Quote:

And from my own experience only one of my 10 amps had consistently noticable dynamics over the others in a selection test (deliberately not preference), even though their voltage rails and outputs all varied from 110watts all the way up to 650+ watts and other in between in mid 100s, 200ish and mid 200s, 300 and also mid to high 300s.
Of course I must stress that this is my own experience, so hey maybe I was biased in wanting it to fail.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Krabapple please consider change your post 85, your flat out wrong what I actually think and are now putting words to some effect that you prefer.
Also didnt you say you have never done an ABX when someone asked you?
I actually have a healthy respect for some ABX testers here and their approach and attitude, that being MZillch, who comes across open minded.

Cheers
DT

Krab's done a ton regarding codecs.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House

Mmmm - I'm not so sure, batpig. On both units, I found the threshold of distortion, and purposely ran each unit just below that level to compare the sounds. At such levels on both units, the amp sounded louder, cleaner, bigger, and filled the room more than the AVR.

But the "threshold of distortion" is DIFFERENT for the two! So if you ran each below that "threshold", the Emo would be at a higher volume! Which is exactly what you heard when you say "louder, cleaner, bigger". Without "level matching", it's somewhat meaningless.

Quote:

I was not comparing the AVR with distortion to the amp without, as you have insinuated.

Well, you did say that, here is your quote:

Quote:

What I found was that although the Denon can be turned up louder, it distorts at those high levels compared to the amp. When the amp is up very loud, although not as loud as full volume on the Denon, the sound is very clean. Since I have never done this before, I din't really notice how distorted the Denon is at high volumes until I had the amp to compare it to. Now that I have heard it, I really appreciate the clean sound the amp is putting out.

You also made several other comments about how you could start to hear the distortion on the Denon amp when it was driven at volumes beyond its limits. I'm not trying to imply that that was the extent of your comparison, as you did mention other tests you did and you seemed like you were making a sincere effort to be thorough.

Also, I'm not trying to ruin your enjoyment of your new amp -- the Emo is most certainly a BETTER amp than those in the 589!! But, had you found a passage where the receiver amps were not being pushed into clipping/distortion, and then LEVEL MATCHED the Emo to it, I bet you would have had difficulty picking them out in a blind test.

All fair points Chu and yes I totally agree about the confidence aspect that is a fatal flaw even I must say for some in the industry who assumed they could pass, thanks for the good input and also the clarification on the ABX by Krabapple (no point in me removing the question as you answered it).

But the "threshold of distortion" is DIFFERENT for the two! So if you ran each below that "threshold", the Emo would be at a higher volume! Which is exactly what you heard when you say "louder, cleaner, bigger". Without "level matching", it's somewhat meaningless.

Well, you did say that, here is your quote:

You also made several other comments about how you could start to hear the distortion on the Denon amp when it was driven at volumes beyond its limits. I'm not trying to imply that that was the extent of your comparison, as you did mention other tests you did and you seemed like you were making a sincere effort to be thorough.

Also, I'm not trying to ruin your enjoyment of your new amp -- the Emo is most certainly a BETTER amp than those in the 589!! But, had you found a passage where the receiver amps were not being pushed into clipping/distortion, and then LEVEL MATCHED the Emo to it, I bet you would have had difficulty picking them out in a blind test.

I will have to agree with Batpig on a partial basis.
In this case I agree that level matched, given the probable equipment played on I also doubt that anyone could tell the difference.
In general, HT components and all that goes along with most of them (there are exceptions) would not likely be able to confidently display subtle or slight differences in music. There is however, another world of audio equipment that most of the public rarely get a chance to listen to or are exposed to.
There are are higher quality amps, CD players, pre-amps etc that , when properly matched, will dwarf the typical multi-channel systems that dominate this forum.
This is , in no way , a put down or elitism attitude, it is just fact.
So, in general, given the typical equipment mentioned here, it lacks the ability to discern small differences or qualities in music reproduction that is possible in the stereo world.
So, although Emotiva is a slightly better amp than the receiver, or is probably better, it is not going to be noticed in a system that is incapable of discerning small differences.
This is just my opinion, not meant to flame or inflame.

There are are higher quality amps, CD players, pre-amps etc that , when properly matched, will dwarf the typical multi-channel systems that dominate this forum.
This is , in no way , a put down or elitism attitude, it is just fact.

No, it's not. It's a fiction. If you have any actual evidence for it, of course, I'd be happy to retract that statement. Till then, you're just makin' stuff up.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

Amazing that this type of thread still gets started - because they ALWAYS end up going downhill fast.

If you can't hear the difference, then get the cheapest amp that will drive your speakers to the loudest volume you listen to in your room (with a little headroom before clipping), and pat yourself on the back for all the money you saved over the fools that blew their $$$ to buy that "statement" piece.

My opinion?

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to several different amps swapped in and out of a fairly high end, revealing system. Same cables, same everything else, speakers not moved. Listened at differrent levels with each amp (loud, soft, and in between)

No ABX/DBT.

Flame suit on

I feel so sorry for those who can't hear differences.

The interesting thing is that each had it's own strengths and weaknesses, and each person in attendance had a different preference. We all heard pretty much the same things, but each had a different opinion as to what was more important, and therefore made for the best sound.

Ah, if there were only one amp out there that combined the strengths of each, without the weaknesses.

But the "threshold of distortion" is DIFFERENT for the two! So if you ran each below that "threshold", the Emo would be at a higher volume! Which is exactly what you heard when you say "louder, cleaner, bigger". Without "level matching", it's somewhat meaningless.

Well, you did say that, here is your quote:.

My bad - I should have said that I did not solely compare the two when the AVR was clipping and the amp not. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt in your post. I did indeed test them in many ways, as I am sure anyone would, given the opportunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batpig

But, had you found a passage where the receiver amps were not being pushed into clipping/distortion, and then LEVEL MATCHED the Emo to it, I bet you would have had difficulty picking them out in a blind test.

I somewhat agree. I almost posted the same exact sentiment in my last post. But here's the thing: with the amp, I have the ability to turn it up louder, and fill the room more without distortion, where I don't have that ability on the AVR. I fail to see how it could then be said that the AVR and the amp sound the same - the AVR is incapable of producing the sound of the amp at those higher levels. By definition, they don't sound the same. But I think we are just into semantics now - because I think we are generally agreeing.

If you add the qualifiers to the testing parameters of backing below clipping levels on both units, and matching levels, then sure, it will be harder to tell them apart - your point is well taken. My issue with such a comparison is that is not how I will use this equipment in my daily use. I will, from time to time, turn it up the level where the amp performs well and the AVR does not. So for me and my listening habits, they certainly don't sound the same - one is objectively, factually better than the other.

But your points are well taken, and I think the different perspectives certainly highlight the difficulties of such comparisons and discussions.

------------------

I wanted to keep the above points only to the non-opinion part of the observations, because they are easier to bang-out. All that being said, I only "somewhat" agreed with you above, because I believe that the amp sounds better than the AVR at levels above about half the full volume up the distortion level of the AVR when the volumes were matched. Below about half volume, I agree - I would be unable to distinguish in a blind test. However, in the upper half of the range, the amp just sounded somewhat cleaner. This is a test that I performed with several pieces, and my wife noticed it as well. I purposely stayed away from this "opinion" part of the discussion above, because it is much harder to describe or quantify, and I know that it may appear to be that magical property of more expensive equipment and the user's desire for it to sound better, but this is what I observed. I feel the same way as what John Schneider just posted - there was a certain quality in the sounds of the amp that I liked better. But hey, that's just me.

In any case, it is a great discussion, and fun to try to describe what you are hearing with words.

I wanted to keep the above points only to the non-opinion part of the observations, because they are easier to bang-out. All that being said, I only "somewhat" agreed with you above, because I believe that the amp sounds better than the AVR at levels above about half the full volume up the distortion level of the AVR when the volumes were matched. Below about half volume, I agree - I would be unable to distinguish in a blind test. However, in the upper half of the range, the amp just sounded somewhat cleaner. This is a test that I performed with several pieces, and my wife noticed it as well. I purposely stayed away from this "opinion" part of the discussion above, because it is much harder to describe or quantify, and I know that it may appear to be that magical property of more expensive equipment and the user's desire for it to sound better, but this is what I observed. I feel the same way as what John Schneider just posted - there was a certain quality in the sounds of the amp that I liked better. But hey, that's just me.

In any case, it is a great discussion, and fun to try to describe what you are hearing with words.

*
FWIW, I've come to nearly the same conclusion as you when comparing an AVR output to that of an amp. In my case it was the HK AVR 520 I've been listening to for the past 8 years. I know its sound well.

When I bought the Emo UPA-7 I wasn't looking for more or better sound. I liked the 520. But what I found in the Emo surprised me. It delivered more punch in the low frequencies, above the sub cutoff, 80hz and up, to 600hz or so, the entire range of the 8" drivers on my IL40s. They've never sounded better. Diana Krall sounded as if she were sitting 15' away banging away on that piano.

Before I got the new amp I was seriously considering a new set of speakers.

That won't be happening now!

Now, I'm going to sit back and see how this thread develops. I have no desire to get into the thick of it, debating what can and can't be heard. I know what I've heard and what I can hear, and thats all that matters. I feel no compunction to convince anyone about my hearing and what I can or cannot hear.

Amazing that this type of thread still gets started - because they ALWAYS end up going downhill fast.

Given that people are obviously going to debate this to the end of time, seems possible dedicated thread could serve as sort of a "lightning rod" to the debate away from other threads. Especially if the mods were willing to sticky it.

Sure people will flame. But at least they would flame in one spot. And people interested in the discussion could probably pick up the major arguments in the first 5 pages or so.

Thanks for the above. Interesting bit is what you said about the level of difficulty you have hearing the minute sonic characteristic of amps. Are you sure your gears have enough revealing power?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Schneider

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to several different amps swapped in and out of a fairly high end, revealing system. Same cables, same everything else, speakers not moved. Listened at differrent levels with each amp (loud, soft, and in between)

Once you have heard a superb system or one in which your jaws drop, you are hooked.
I recall taking a CD that I was very familiar with into a high end stereo demo room with various equipment.
When they played my CD, I heard things that I had never heard on that CD before.
It was all on that CD, but, my system was not able to discern and reveal what was on it.
If you have the chance to go into high end shops to see what is out there, definitely do it.
Its a shame that many high end shops are closing or have been closed. Its mainly because of the internet in which folks are doing internet shopping and those shops lost sales. They have to mark up equipment to support the sales persons and the building.
Anyway, I would say that one way of looking at this hobby is (see Schneider post), what is your goal? For many, it is to try to reproduce "live" music in their home, or to be able to reproduce what was recorded in the recording studio.
That pursuit is expensive and is also part of the audio hobby, many folks never reach satisfaction, mainly because they enjoy trying different components.
Hey, we are guys.... we like our toys....all you got to do is admit it.
Otherwise , many would not be here reading these posts..........

Thanks for the above. Interesting bit is what you said about the level of difficulty you have hearing the minute sonic characteristic of amps. Are you sure your gears have enough revealing power?

Err, I think you are misunderstanding everything I have written, especially the part where I used a variation of products from 110w up to 650watts (+-110 volts and a crazy amp current) and my thoughts and experiences with regards to selection testing and preference, how there can be a relationship between speaker and amp due to certain negative characteristics exacerbated by a small % of album and tracks, etc.
If I did not explain well enough in my experience and examples please ask a specific question.

BTW there are many who have heard Goldfrapp Seventh Tree and never even noticed the masking hiss when she sings (as I explained for me and due to characteristic of my speaker it is a nightmare that took me up to amp 9 and 10 to resolve to a level for my satisfaction).
Funny though that a friend of mine has good hearing and never noticed this until I pointed it out, for which he was not happy about as it is now in his awareness.
However an interesting point that should be added to this discussion is that he always and I mean always listens to music as background while doing other tasks, also I have noticed there are other types of sound he manages to ignore (or mask without knowing) such as the noise floor from some products or noise generated in background from Pioneer Plasma tvs.

So I think another aspect to this discussion is that do those who purely listen to music in background subconsciously mask or for some reason possibly related to training to hear do not notice certain noise characteristics?

Last point back at you Wolfgang, so far it seems your trying to raise questions not really of any point (as they always ignore what I have written), so please try to contribute to this by asking what you actually mean or your opinion without trying to cause an argument.
However I sincerely apologise if your intention is truly of interest.

I agree Krabapple it is food for thought that maybe we do have bias when it comes to dynamics and going for powerful amps believing we hear more than what is there.
However the complete food for thought is that it could be possible that in ABX testing for some reason listeners fail to identify actual dynamics that are there, and also even more subtle sounds.
As I said in the past to a certain extent it is probably a mix of both instances.

But an interesting preference is when reading either from people like Ailmentall or other posters when they audition one particular manufacturer that has a unique solution.
Here is a different example that when listeners go and audition the NAD M3 to other similar spec amps.
It seems that it has a serious amount of fans, but maybe this is because it has a proprietary solution that is very slick for instant dynamic power and also soft clipping.
Of course this then would lead to the fact there is potential for dynamics being involved and identified as preference, or in other words preference listening and testing.

And from my own experience only one of my 10 amps had consistently noticable dynamics over the others in a selection test (deliberately not preference), even though their voltage rails and outputs all varied from 110watts all the way up to 650+ watts and other in between in mid 100s, 200ish and mid 200s, 300 and also mid to high 300s.
Of course I must stress that this is my own experience, so hey maybe I was biased in wanting it to fail.

Krabapple please consider change your post 85, your flat out wrong what I actually think and are now putting words to some effect that you prefer.
Also didnt you say you have never done an ABX when someone asked you?

No, I certainly didn't say that. I haven't done gear ABX comparisons; a have done numerous sound file ABX comparisons...which are only methodologically easier, not inherently easier as listening tasks (have you ever tried to ABX a good mp3 from lossless)?

There are are higher quality amps, CD players, pre-amps etc that , when properly matched, will dwarf the typical multi-channel systems that dominate this forum.

This is , in no way , a put down or elitism attitude, it is just fact.
No, it's not. It's a fiction. If you have any actual evidence for it, of course, I'd be happy to retract that statement. Till then, you're just makin' stuff up.

I guess he's talking about size. Some of those boutique amps are HUMONGOUS.

Amazing that this type of thread still gets started - because they ALWAYS end up going downhill fast.

One wonders what the OP could have been thinking.

Quote:

If you can't hear the difference, then get the cheapest amp that will drive your speakers to the loudest volume you listen to in your room (with a little headroom before clipping), and pat yourself on the back for all the money you saved over the fools that blew their $$$ to buy that "statement" piece.

And if you can 'hear the difference' between amp stages, remind yourself that it stands a real chance of being totally imaginary. THere's ways of ruling that chance out -- one's called blind, level-matched comparison. Another is thorough bench testing into realistic loads at nondistorting levels. Somehow I don't see most amp-addicts going through the trouble of either, so how about they just stop making unqualified claims of difference?

So I am talking nonsense but you never tried to differentiate dynamics in amps yourself, or say even to see whether speakers can have negative characteristics due to compromises (the saying there is no perfect speaker) and see if these are influenced by room acoustics adjusted over months and also spending serious amount of months trying various amps, and on top of this try to understand if those characterstics are exacerbated by various music?

I give you credit and kudos for spending time doing lossless investigation as that has greater relevance as can be seen by the amount of Ipods/etc that sell in vast numbers.
Also I would say doing those tests are more a pain in the backside as you have less factors you can engineer or deal with making investigations with conclusions pretty tough.
So no, never tried it and not sure I will.

Once you have heard a superb system or one in which your jaws drop, you are hooked.
I recall taking a CD that I was very familiar with into a high end stereo demo room with various equipment.
When they played my CD, I heard things that I had never heard on that CD before.

Maybe that room's acoustic were optimized for listening. That would make a GIGANTIC difference for the better...regardless of the gear.

If all amps sound the same then how come my Crown XLS 402D amps sound worse when bridged? My sub is a simple 8 ohm load and the crown is rated for a 4 ohm load (which it sees when bridged into an 8 ohm load).